Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Jun 6, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Denver Post

Engaged gay couple Dave Mullins, second from left, and Charlie Craig, left, were joined by a small group of supporters in Lakewood on Aug. 4, 2012 to protest and boycott the Masterpiece Cakeshop at 3355 S. Wadsworth Blvd. The couple went to the cake shop, and the owner turned the couple away saying he would not make them a rainbow-themed wedding ... (more)

Comments
1,301 - 1,320 of 2,524 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1520
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

2

1

Wondering wrote:
Knowing that something exists impacts your rights?

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1521
Mar 11, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because something has historical precedent, does not mean that it is right or just. At one time, there had always been slavery in the United States of America, Women had never been able to vote, schools had always been segregated, interracial marriage had never been allowed etc.
The constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws.
Marriage is a protection of the law in every state in the union, and homosexuals are people, plain and simple.
I'm sure respect will get all upset because you mentioned slavery. Of course Respect still insists that the baker was not in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's Title 2.

Somehow Respect has convinced himself that using religion to justify denying service somehow isn't religious discrimination, even though that ius the legal definition of religious discrimination.

Respect wants everyone to be all warm and fuzzy over CO civil unions and insists the law is valid yet he does a complete about face when it comes to public accommodations laws in CO.

It's sad watching him try to insist that one law is valid under the U.S. Constitution and the other isn't.

He uses States Rights to justify CO civil unions law then refuses to apply States Rights to laws governing Public accommodations and anti-discrimination statutes.

IOW Respect has become an expert at talking out of both sides of his ass.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Level 2

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1522
Mar 11, 2014
 
Wondering wrote:
Since the anti-gays seem to like Leviticus so much I thought I's share something from there as well.

Leviticus 19:18
King James Version (KJV)
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.

BTW what about these passages as well?

Colossians 1:16 NIV
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

1 Peter 2:13-15 ESV

Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.

How come these people who have deeply held religious beliefs find so little value in the passages I listed?
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1523
Mar 12, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not if it trample the First Amendment and the 14Th Amendment. Your dot remove liberties from individuals.
You don't have the liberty to ignore the law and use your silly religion as an excuse.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1524
Mar 12, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“If all you can do is accuse the judge of being liberal, you have no argument.”“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Government FORCING people to use their talents in favor of the institution of “gay Marriage” is not Constitutional.
The judge is only responsible for following the law, not what you understand about the law. Evidently your understanding is incorrect.

Cake baking is not a religious practice. A bakery is not a church.
Xavier Breath

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1525
Mar 12, 2014
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
What I state are not arguments they are facts.
Then why did the baker lose in court?

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1526
Mar 13, 2014
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wondering wrote:
Sweetie, you do remember that every single court which considered the claim that their parental rights had been violated laughed them out of court, don't you? if you really want to prove that somebody has been harmed by same sex marriages, it would help to have an example where somebody had proof that they had been harmed. This ain't it.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1527
Apr 5, 2014
 
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
The government is punishing the baker for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
He has a product for sale: wedding cake. He will sell that product to a straight couple. He will not sell that product to a gay couple. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
<quoted text>
Or two husbands. Or two wives. Or one man and many wives. Marriage takes a variety of forms. You cannot simply declare only ONE form to be the official definition.
<quoted text>
I'm not being dishonest at all. The existing definition is unequal. The changed definition would be equal.
Every argument you're making could be made in opposition of interracial marriage.
“The government is punishing the baker for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” No. The government is FORCING the baker to use his talents to support “gay marriage”

“He has a product for sale: wedding cake.” Which he believes is for a husband and wife.
“He will sell that product to a straight couple.” Because he believes its for a husband and wife.
“He will not sell that product to a gay couple. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” Because he believes its for a husband and wife.

“Or two husbands. Or two wives. Or one man and many wives. Marriage takes a variety of forms.” You deny history and nature and to RE-DEFINE marriage won’t change facts.

“You cannot simply declare only ONE form to be the official definition.” Except for the fact that it is.

“I'm not being dishonest at all. The existing definition is unequal. The changed definition would be equal.” Now you will have to explain that.

“Every argument you're making could be made in opposition of interracial marriage.” No it can’t.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1528
Apr 5, 2014
 
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Your side isn't being punished in any way.
It's not "punishment" just because you can't force your beliefs on other people and inhibit their choices.
“Your side isn't being punished in any way.” No, a baker is for his own personal belief in marriage.

“It's not "punishment" just because you can't force your beliefs on other people and inhibit their choices.” The government forcing a man to support something he doesn’t believe in is punishment.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1529
Apr 5, 2014
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep
He doesn’t have that right.
<quoted text>
There you go again, have you learned it’s meaning yet? Have you come up with a way in which providing a cake to a gay couple subverts religious freedom?
<quoted text>
That is not his concern. They didn’t ask him to perform the ceremony, or even participate, they asked him to bake a cake.
<quoted text>
Of course, you have never supported this assertion with evidence that would prove it was true. Mere repetition does not make a statement factual. Even if this were true, it doesn’t help your case. The proprietor does not get to decide which goods or services they will make available to which clients.
<quoted text>
The court clearly held that you are wrong, and that making a cake is neither speech, nor is it an endorsement of the event where it will be consumed. Do you ever stop to think how ridiculous the arguments you are presenting make you sound?
<quoted text>
He denies them service. That is not doing nothing, and it is in violation of Colorado law.
<quoted text>
Several other judges trying similar cases have reached the same conclusion. It is at best disingenuous to suggest that all of them were merely liberal judges engaging in judicial activism. The fact that you make such an oversimplified argument implies that you are not up to offering a rational or logical argument in favor of your position.
“You keep repeating this ad naseum, but don’t really seem to understand it. How would providing a wedding cake for a same sex couple violate the baker’s religious freedom? Be specific.” Its using his talents to support a institution he doesn’t believe. If you don’t like the First Amendment, then gather your friends to change it... You’ll need a lot of friends.

“They aren’t. They are preventing him from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which in no way impacts his freedom to exercise the religion of his choosing. It does prevent him from projecting his religious beliefs onto others in violation of their religious freedom.” Do you understand what you just said?

“He has neither been fined nor jailed.” Do you understand this case at all?

“They believe differently than he does, which is their right. By denying them service because they believe differently he is violating their free exercise of religion. He is also breaking the law of the state of Colorado. It’s funny how your side rushes to defend someone who broke the law.” Like persons at gay pride events, right?

“He doesn’t have that right.””Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

“That is not his concern. They didn’t ask him to perform the ceremony, or even participate, they asked him to bake a cake.” Which government is forcing him to provide a talent to support. That’s unconstitutional.

“Of course, you have never supported this assertion with evidence that would prove it was true. Mere repetition does not make a statement factual. Even if this were true, it doesn’t help your case. The proprietor does not get to decide which goods or services they will make available to which clients.” So you’re denying the case? The facts?

“The court clearly held that you are wrong, and that making a cake is neither speech, nor is it an endorsement of the event where it will be consumed. Do you ever stop to think how ridiculous the arguments you are presenting make you sound?” Do you?

“He denies them service. That is not doing nothing, and it is in violation of Colorado law.” ONLY the wedding cake which he believes is for a husband and wife.

“Several other judges trying similar cases have reached the same conclusion. It is at best disingenuous to suggest that all of them were merely liberal judges engaging in judicial activism. The fact that you make such an oversimplified argument implies that you are not up to offering a rational or logical argument in favor of your position.” We shall see.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1530
Apr 5, 2014
 
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It is your opinion, nothing more.
<quoted text>
Sorry kiddo, that doesn’t rise to the level of a state interest. You seem to suffer from the delusion that the legal protections of marriage, as overseen by the state in civil marriage, and the religious institution of marriage are intrinsically linked. They are not, they are two completely separate entities.
<quoted text>
I am not the one who is failing to be objective. You are clinging to a definition that excludes some Americans from equality under the law, but lack the ability to articulate a state interest served by such restrictions that would render them constitutional. Time to grow up, kiddo.
Tell me, how does allowing same sex marriage in any way impact you or your rights?
<quoted text>
They aren’t. The government in this case is only intervening because the baker broke the law. He need not accept gay marriage, or even think that it is right or moral, but he doesn’t have the right to deny service on the basis of sexual orientation.
<quoted text>
Sorry, kiddo. While civil unions do secure certain rights and protections, they stop far short of extending the full legal rights and protections of legal marriage.
You don't seem to have a firm grasp of the law, or the US Constitution. Just as you seem to lack the ability to specifically articulate how providing a service for a same sex couple violates the baker's free exercise of religion. If one were to strictly apply your logic, he should also deny service for remarriages, to divorced people, anyone who eats bacon or shellfish, adulterers, or to conduct business with women when it is that time of the month.
The baker's free exercise was never in threat. he overreacted, he attempted to project his religious moral views onto his would-be clients, and in so doing, violated the laws of the Great State of Colorado. When one breaks the law, they should expect to be punished. When one wishes to defend religious freedom, they might select a case where the person in question had not broken the law.
Get help.
“Sorry, kiddo. While civil unions do secure certain rights and protections, they stop far short of extending the full legal rights and protections of legal marriage.” Really? How so? What specifically?

“You don't seem to have a firm grasp of the law, or the US Constitution.” Apparently better than you.

“If one were to strictly apply your logic, he should also deny service for remarriages, to divorced people, anyone who eats bacon or shellfish, adulterers, or to conduct business with women when it is that time of the month.” Please explain the logic and use Biblical evidence to support your statement.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1531
Apr 5, 2014
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't have the liberty to ignore the law and use your silly religion as an excuse.
You do if it violates the First Amendment.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1532
Apr 5, 2014
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
The judge is only responsible for following the law, not what you understand about the law. Evidently your understanding is incorrect.
Cake baking is not a religious practice. A bakery is not a church.
”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1533
Apr 5, 2014
 
Xavier Breath wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why did the baker lose in court?
A liberal judge who, like you, doesn’t like Christians is my guess...

“ reality, what a concept”

Level 2

Since: Nov 07

this one

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1534
Apr 5, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
A liberal judge who, like you, doesn’t like Christians is my guess...
That's your fantasy and you're sticking to it. The baker lost because the evidence proved that he broke a constitutionally valid law. His blaming God for his bigotry does not exempt him or his business from the requirements of the law any more than God telling you to discriminate on race, sex, religion, ethnicity or any other suspect classification under the law. It's the same reason that the photographer has lost four times now, including unanimously before a 3 judge panel and all 7 justices on the high court. Let me guess, liberals, all 12 of them, they have to be.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1535
Apr 6, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
Its using his talents to support a institution he doesn’t believe. If you don’t like the First Amendment, then gather your friends to change it... You’ll need a lot of friends.
That argument was made by the plaintiffs and dismissed by the court.
Respect71 wrote:
Do you understand what you just said?
Yes. The state has the right to prevent discrimination based on any number of criterion including sexual orientation.
Respect71 wrote:
Do you understand this case at all?
Yes, I do. Do you understand that as yet the baker has not been punished in any way, he has merely been found guilty of violating the state law against discrimination?
Respect71 wrote:
Like persons at gay pride events, right?
That is a matter of free speech. The baker provides a service, and the court also addressed the fact that baking a cake, while requiring skill, did not rise to the level of free speech.
Respect71 wrote:
Which government is forcing him to provide a talent to support. That’s unconstitutional.
He choose to open a bakery. He chose to offer wedding cakes. The state is merely preventing him from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Doing so, the court has rightly illustrated, violated neither the baker's free speech or free exercise of religion.
Respect71 wrote:
So you’re denying the case? The facts?
I am not denying anything. The facts are the facts. The baker denied service to the gay couple in violation of the state law. If one breaks the law, they should anticipate that the state will act accordingly.
Respect71 wrote:
Do you?
I'm not the fool arguing that cake is speech.
Respect71 wrote:
ONLY the wedding cake which he believes is for a husband and wife.
Providing the service in no way violates the free exercise of religion or free speech of the baker. He denied service not to preserve his own rights, but rather to project his moral views onto the potential clients. He does not have that right.
Respect71 wrote:
We shall see.
Some of us already do see.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1536
Apr 6, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
Really? How so? What specifically?
Spousal privilege, for starters. The law has long acknowledged the reality that separate is inherently unequal. Get over it.
Respect71 wrote:
Apparently better than you.
Funny, you are the one who seems to think that the baker is being persecuted when in fact they broke the law.

This isn't rocket science, kiddo.
Respect71 wrote:
Please explain the logic and use Biblical evidence to support your statement.
This actually is just extrapolating a simple concept. Free exercise of religion allows us to make our own religious choices. You seem to suffer from the delusion that this includes projecting our religious moral views onto others by denying them service if they do not conform to our religious views. It is only logical that, in such a scenario, that a devout Christian could deny service for any of the reasons I listed.

I can understand why you would find such a hypothetical scenario to be unsettling, because it illustrates just how silly the argument you are advancing really is.
Level 4

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1537
Apr 6, 2014
 
Respect71 wrote:
<quoted text>
“The government is punishing the baker for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” No. The government is FORCING the baker to use his talents to support “gay marriage”
The government is regulating businesses to prevent discriminatory behavior. He doesn't have to bake them a cake just like he doesn't have to clean his kitchen. But if he chooses not to do so, he can't operate.

It doesn't matter if he doesn't like gay people or if he loves cockroaches.
Respect71 wrote:
“Or two husbands. Or two wives. Or one man and many wives. Marriage takes a variety of forms.” You deny history and nature and to RE-DEFINE marriage won’t change facts.
You're the one denying history, Respect. Marriage as it currently exists in this country is a recent invention.
Respect71 wrote:
“I'm not being dishonest at all. The existing definition is unequal. The changed definition would be equal.” Now you will have to explain that.
Traditional marriage excludes gay couples. They are treated unequally.
Respect71 wrote:
“Every argument you're making could be made in opposition of interracial marriage.” No it can’t.
Yes, they can. I can argue that making a cake for an interracial couple violates my religious beliefs. I can argue that interracial marriage is not traditional.

“No Headline available”

Level 2

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1538
Apr 6, 2014
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
Sweetie, you do remember that every single court which considered the claim that their parental rights had been violated laughed them out of court, don't you? if you really want to prove that somebody has been harmed by same sex marriages, it would help to have an example where somebody had proof that they had been harmed. This ain't it.
Are they back on that again? I, for one, find it hysterical that Wondering so regularly cites the Parker's case in spite of the fact that a) they lost, and b) they were given leave to refile in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (having failed to mount a federal case), and yet never did so.

They look utterly inept when they continually cite cases they lost.

Level 6

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1539
Apr 7, 2014
 
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>That's your fantasy and you're sticking to it. The baker lost because the evidence proved that he broke a constitutionally valid law. His blaming God for his bigotry does not exempt him or his business from the requirements of the law any more than God telling you to discriminate on race, sex, religion, ethnicity or any other suspect classification under the law. It's the same reason that the photographer has lost four times now, including unanimously before a 3 judge panel and all 7 justices on the high court. Let me guess, liberals, all 12 of them, they have to be.
It’s good to know you are willing to let the government prosecute the gay baker who is unwilling to print “Marriage is only between a Husband and Wife” on a wedding cake he/she is commissioned to bake by a intended husband and wife. And I can’t wait for the gay photographer to refuse the couple who wants to hold the sign in their photo stating “Husband and Wife ONLY equal Marriage”. You would be for prosecuting that photographer too, right?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

14 Users are viewing the Denver Forum right now

Search the Denver Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Republicans the party of LIARS (Dec '11) 20 min DonkeyDemocrats 12,228
Students hack into school system, change grades (Apr '07) 56 min thank you hacker 611
Judge strikes down gay marriage ban, stays ruling 2 hr Not Friendly 2
Judge strikes down gay marriage ban, stays ruling 4 hr Gremlin 7
Ban the user above you game (Oct '11) 7 hr joanNYadoptees 2,780
Who likes opiates? 10 hr Yummy 4
CO Who do you support for Governor in Colorado in ... (Oct '10) 16 hr GreeleyGrizzler 286
•••
•••
•••
Denver Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Denver Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Denver People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Denver News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Denver
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••